Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Wayward Son

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 33
General Comments / Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« on: November 04, 2016, 03:36:23 PM »
The only ways they can even pretend to make this work are to set deductibles so high that the average consumer receives little actual benefit from their insurance coverage in a given year (certainly less than the premiums they pay)...

But isn't that how all insurance works?  ???

I mean, show me an insurance plan that provides the average customer more than the premiums they pay.  (Then I'll show you a bankrupt insurance plan. :))

Statistical error in polling should not be significant, because there are so many different polls, that should be taken care of in the aggregate.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, since the individual polls themselves vary wildly (if you consider a +/- 12% or more from the mean "wild" :)).  The +/- 2% or so is the historically expected error of the aggregate.

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: November 04, 2016, 03:21:18 PM »
On a more positive note, here is something we can actually do to monitor the accuracy of vote counts in some areas (about half the country, if I read the article right).

You forgot the most obvious one: normal polling error.

On top of all those other possible factors, the polls themselves are normally only accurate to (+/-) 2 - 3%, when done correctly.

And we won't even talk about the possible errors in exit polling!  ::)

General Comments / Re: Trump on National Security
« on: November 02, 2016, 02:34:03 PM »
Then you just open up the option that we're violent enough over here as it is, we don't need to be importing more of it.  8)

Exactly. I was gonna just let it go because I'm sure I've made that point already but I'm glad it just got reiterated.

As you just said, if terrorists come around knocking on our door selling their crazy violence, then to quote Jack Nicholson, "Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."

Which is a fair point, if you assume that they are at least as violent as we are, if not more so.  I doubt that assumption is true, especially when a vast majority of refugees are women, children and old men.  But it is certainly one that cannot be definitively proven either way.

But the point you are missing is the price of refusing to allow these refugees in. 

Remember, they are refugees.  They don't have homes or businesses.  Most are living in camps.  They have no status in the places they are staying.  A vast majority are living off charity.  They don't know, from one day to the next, if they will be forcibly moved or cut off from any form of aid.

And then you want us to say to them, "Hey, we don't want you here, because a few of you might be as dangerous as we are, because your children might grow up to be as murderous as we are, so we'd rather you stay in your tents far away from us."

Millions of people have been displaced because of the conflict in Syria.  And we're too afraid to let a few thousand into our country because we can't guarantee 100 percent that some of them won't start killing people like we do every day.  ::)

Well, you can't guarantee that my next-door neighbor won't shoot me tomorrow.  So I want a much better reason than that for denying help to people in need.

And as for Europe being so safe, well that's nice so why ruin it?

Is there supposed to be some sort of world quota system for violence we're imposing so that if Muslim countries have too much violence and Europe has too little and not meeting its quota we need to equalize them? Maybe tackle some of that white privilege? 

I am glad for your concern for the Europeans, but I thought we were talking about the U.S.  And when you use Europe as an example of violence we don't want to see here, I think it's worth pointing out that we have worse violence than they are experiencing, even with their terrorist attacks.  So I have to question whether it is the violence per se that you are worried about, or if it is something else.  Because, apparently, it isn't really the safety of Americans--the men, women and children on the streets--that is your utmost concern.

General Comments / Re: Trump on National Security
« on: November 01, 2016, 10:40:59 PM »
You keep talking, Cherry, about the lawlessness in Germany and Europe, about their horrible terrorist attacks, how we don't want to be like them.

You keep forgetting, Cherry, that people are safer in Europe than in American.

The rate of murders--including from terrorist attacks--is still far lower in Europe than in the United States.

So when you talk about us not wanting to become like Europe, what exactly are you talking about?  You're obviously not talking about us becoming more secure than Europe.  ;)

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 27, 2016, 10:39:09 AM »
Actually ballot selfies are probably prohibited for a much simpler reason, to prevent paying for votes.

Could be fun to abuse that way. Fill out a ballot one way to get paid, take picture, go back and ask for new ballot, destroy the old one, and vote how you want on the second.

Interesting idea.  I know it's illegal to vote twice; but is it illegal to get paid twice (by both sides) for your vote? ;)

General Comments / Re: Scott Adams is trying to hypnotize the country
« on: October 26, 2016, 03:34:37 PM »
I can tell you that I don't have a Trump bumper sticker just because some liberal would vandalize my car if I did. That must be the cold wind stifling freedom of speech liberals used to talk about.

It could be worse.  You could be a Republican opposing Trump.

Trump Doesn't Care Whether the GOP Keeps Congress

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 26, 2016, 02:31:43 PM »
To be fair, AI, Teske apparently was noting that there are statues that prohibit poll sites that affords an advantage to any particular party.

Teske wrote she didn't like the idea "at all for many reasons," citing staffing and others, and noted statutes say no polling site may be designated that affords an advantage to any political party.

"UWGB is a polling location for students and residents on Election Day but I feel by asking for this to be the site for early voting is encouraging the students to vote more than benefiting the city as a whole," Teske wrote. "I have heard it said that students lean more toward the democrats and he is a democrat. I have spoken with our Chief of Staff and others at City Hall and they agree that budget wise this isn't going to happen."

She also asked, "Do I have an argument about it being more of a benefit to the democrats?"

Of course, she was cut down in the reply to her e-mail:

"As far as stating that one political party may be advantaged more because of a particular location, I might be hesitant to make that argument unless you could point to something other than 'I've heard that students lean more democratic,'" Judnic wrote. "Additionally, the in-person sites could be used by all residents of the city and wouldn't be restricted to use by students. Finally, if the campus polling location is OK for election day, and there is no 'political advantage' then, I'm not sure what the difference is for in-person absentee voting at that same location?"

General Comments / Re: Analysis of the Candidates/Election
« on: October 25, 2016, 06:00:44 PM »
And speaking of a place no a President should ever go: The Trump cartoon, The Trump Takeover.   ;D

General Comments / Re: Analysis of the Candidates/Election
« on: October 25, 2016, 05:26:20 PM »
One other thing to consider is that the Alt-Right supports Trump, and he seems to enjoy it.

There are some truly vile, despicable people behind Trump and love what he says.

Check out this article from David French in The National Review--if you have the stomach for it.

You have to wonder, why would these slime feel the need to defend Trump so vehemently?  Why do they identify so closely with him?  Would (did?) they defend Romney so?

The fact that the Alt-Right feels so strongly about Trump may be the best argument for voting for Clinton.  Because anyone who gives these SOBs the impression that he represents them has probably crossed a line into a place no President should ever go. :(

Edited to add:

Something is screwy with the link.  Google the phrase "I saw images of my daughter's face in gas chambers, with a smiling Trump in a Nazi uniform preparing to press the button and kill her."  Or "I saw her face photoshopped into images of slaves." That should bring you to it.

General Comments / Re: Trump on National Security
« on: October 25, 2016, 12:29:41 PM »
Trump is absolutely correct that the vetting process Hillary insists will work in fact does not work and puts Americans in grave danger.

Define "grave danger." :)

No vetting system is perfect, and any suggestions to make it better are appreciated.  But Trump doesn't want to improve the vetting system; he wants to just shut it down, because of this "grave danger."

We're in more danger from the thousands of armed criminals, psychos, anti-government crazies, and people blinded by anger already in this country than from the few foreign terrorists that manage to sneak in.  If you are truly concerned with making this country safer for our citizens, let's get the number of gun deaths down to international levels first before closing our borders to refugees.

Trump is a sniveling, cowering coward who would sacrifice women and children to starvation, exposure or ISIS in order to make himself maybe 0.1 percent safer.  This is no "grave danger."  This is an appeal to emotion and prejudice not based on facts.  And people--men, women, and children--will suffer because of this irrational fear.

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 24, 2016, 07:44:36 PM »
Or, more likely, it will bring the crazies out of the corners to go after imagined voter fraud, interfering with the right to vote with (inevitably) Democratic voters, and causing a less-representative government. :(

General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: October 24, 2016, 07:21:39 PM »
If we can't trust Greta Van Susteren then there is no one we can trust.

"Trump partially right about Muslims celebrating 9/11

New investigation finds some Muslims in NJ were celebrating the 9/11 terror attacks, but in the dozens, not thosands as Trump claims. Reporter Mark Mueller..."

I think this is a great example of truthful hyperbole. There is more truth to it than liberals want to admit, but it's also full of hyperbole as well.

Hey, if I can find a dozen or so right-wingers who celebrated the 9/11 attacks, does that mean we can talk about throwing all of them out of our country, too? :D

General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: October 24, 2016, 02:55:25 PM »
Thousands and thousands was truthful hyperbole but I believe he saw enough. Perhaps instead of saying thousands he should have left it at swarms.

Trump said he saw on the TV the thousands and thousands celebrating.  He said he saw it on TV.

I scrolled through the TV clip that Breitbart had.  I didn't see anyone celebrating.  Not one.

And yet Brietbart says this TV story "100% Vindicated" Trump.  Because somebody said they saw it. ::)

It wouldn't have vindicated Trump even if the person who said he saw it was Trump himself, because he still wouldn't have seen it on TV! :D

He didn't see thousands and thousands.  He didn't even see a swarm.  The best you could say was that he misremembered.  Closer to the truth would be that he heard about it, and in his addled mind he remembered actually seeing it on TV.

But he didn't see sh!t.

You know, it's probably not a good idea to use an Truthful Hyperbole article to prove that something wasn't a Truthful Hyperbole. :D

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 21, 2016, 05:35:37 PM »
Seriati, have you looked into what the various election boards in each state are doing to prevent the known ways of election fraud from occurring?

Sure, the machines are hackable, and districts with a single party could add votes, and other ways are possible to rig the election.  But there are two things to remember:

1.  Election boards aren't stupid.  A vast majority of election boards have countermeasures in place to make sure the obvious ways of cheating are caught.  If you have specific concerns, why don't you check with your local election board and find out if those ways are possible locally?  Or if there is anything you can do to help prevent them?  That way, you would at least help prevent such shenanigans in one precinct.

2.  There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of election boards in the U.S.  I think just about every county has a board to administer the election and count the votes.  So while local elections could be tipped by fraud, it would very difficult to rig every county in a state, or even the outcome of a national election.  Because it would take operatives in just about every county, if not every precinct or voting place, to pull off most of the schemes I've heard (like filling in names of people who didn't vote to a voter's list).  And the larger the conspiracy, the easier it is to find someone who'll tattle. :)

There is no 100% guarantee that the election isn't rigged.  But there are enough people working in the election who don't want the election to be rigged that it is very difficult to do so and get away with it, especially with electing a President of the United States.  Anyone who thinks that there is a good reason to be suspicious of the results needs to show exactly why he thinks so. 

Unlike certain Presidential candidates, who shall remain nameless... :)

General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: October 21, 2016, 03:38:55 PM »
If so, how do you know he's right now when he *promises* he has a no-muss, no-fuss secret plan that will solve the whole ISIS problem so fast you'll be tired of winning.

Ah, but there you're wrong, AI.  After months of saying how he was smarter than all the Generals and had a fool-proof plan to take care of ISIS, but he wouldn't tell us until he was elected lest someone else got the credit for it, he finally did tell us what the plan was.

Once he became President, he would call all the Generals together and give them 30 days to come up with a plan. :)

Now that's thinking!

General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: October 21, 2016, 11:28:18 AM »
Are some other instances of truthful hyperbole possibly issues like Obamacare and man made global warming?

Sure, there are "truthful hyperboles" in both.

Someone once said that you could keep your doctor under Obamacare.  Others have said that Obamacare has made rates rise tremendously faster than they normally would have.

Some have said that AGW will cause the Earth to become another Venus soon.  Others have said that snow in January proves that AGW is not happening.

All of these hyperboles disguise the kernel of truth they may contain, and lead people into extreme solutions to smaller problems.  That is where the danger lies.

Maybe even the Jews in 1939 or the people who many years ago warned about what's happening in Argentina right now?

What happens when truthful hyperbole is an accusation against the position you support like man made global warming or when it turns out to be correct like the current Obamacare death spiral or the economic collapse of Argentina because of socialism?

Ah, but remember, it is not the opposition that calls things "truthful hyperboles."  It is the supporters, who try to excuse the misstatement of the facts as being "innocent," "a rhetorical device," or "revealing the core of truth that the other side ignores."  It is basically a half-assed excuse for not stating the facts accurately, and an excuse to appeal to emotions instead of confronting the problem directly and in a balanced approach.

Supporters call it "truthful hyperbole" when they know what they say isn't true.  The opposition just calls it lies and exaggerations, like they always did.

General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: October 20, 2016, 05:44:30 PM »
Yes, both are real issues, and should be addressed. 

But when people say, or worse, believe in "truthful hyperbole," we can't agree on solutions, or even recognize when a solution is appropriate or an overreaction. :(

General Comments / Re: The Third Debate
« on: October 20, 2016, 03:35:32 PM »
Trump has stepped back a bit on "keeping [us] in suspense" about accepting the election results, during a Ohio rally today.

[I would] to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supporters and to all of the people of the United States that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election—if I win.

Such class. ::)

General Comments / Re: Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
« on: October 19, 2016, 01:46:42 PM »
The only real question is why you need to determine how to win arguments against people who employ truthy hyperbole.

When it comes to politics, we need to change people's minds in order to reach a consensus.

For instance, take border security.  If hundreds of thousands of Mexican rapists, murders and welfare cheats cross the border each day, threatening our lives and safety, then it makes sense to spend billions of dollars and probably start another recession to build a 12 foot wall to keep them out.  But if its only a dozen or so of poor, hard-working peasants who are looking for a low-paying job to send money back to their families, then it isn't quite so urgent. :)

Or take voter fraud.  If hundred of thousands of illegal aliens are voting, then it makes sense to require a strict voter ID law, even if it means thousands of legal voters are prevented from voting as a result.  OTOH, if more people are struck by lightning each year than there are instances of people voting illegally in person*, then it makes no sense to disenfranchise voters to prevent a handful (at most) of voter fraud.

So when we are trying to make decisions, as a society, on how to spend our limited resources, truthy hyperbole clouds the issues, but making them seem worse than they are, and thus encouraging people to overreact to the problems.

*Which happens to be accurate. :)

General Comments / Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« on: October 18, 2016, 02:56:45 PM »
One thing I wouldn't see a problem with is somebody counting every citizen who goes in there to vote. You won't know who voted for whom but you will know the maximum number of votes there should be counted at that poll station, so if there is ballot stuffing or someone is voting multiple times in one trip at least that will show up. Surely that is done already though, isn't it?

Although I don't know for sure, I would bet that this is already done.

In California, when we vote, we first have to have our name checked off a list of registered voters for that polling place.  Only then are we given a ballot.  At the end of the day, I would bet that the poll workers check the number of ballots they have against the number handed out over the day.  (It would be very quick and simple at that level.)

I would think other states have similar methods.

The problem with someone counting every person who goes to vote is identifying which ones vote.  The person would basically have to be standing next to the poll worker to make sure he only counts those who got ballots, and not anyone else who might be accompanying someone else.  Which is kinda pushy and distracting to the poll workers... ;)

A better idea would simply to be one of the poll workers. :)

General Comments / Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« on: October 17, 2016, 10:56:20 PM »
If that is your consistent view, then virtually all instances of voter/political intimidation should not be covered, unless you can provide evidence of a general conspiracy.

Seriati, it was covered.  Remember?  You yourself listed the times it was covered, just above.  ::)

The thing you're complaining about is it didn't get enough coverage for your taste.

A few more firebombings and you'll see quite a bit more coverage.

Honestly, that sounds to me like you have a preconceived theme you want to sell (that Trump/Republicans are not the verge of  armed revolt) and since this doesn't fit it has to be discarded.  However, it seems to me, that in the history of political violence it's overwhelmingly the left and its supporters that engage in it, well at least in the last 30 years or so.  Show me any right wing riot, show me any coordinated campaign by Republicans to commit violence, or else just admit, you're selling a story that doesn't match reality.

Gee, I guess the bombing of a government building and the deaths of over 120 people isn't worth mentioning when we're talking about "violence."  Or several abortion provider murders.  Or shooting of police by Bundy supporters.  Or...

Sounds like you have your own preconceived notions of violence that happens to omit the Right. ;)

Tell you what:  show me a left-wing riot over this election that doesn't get front-page coverage and we'll talk.  Otherwise, let's just keep an eye out for right-wing reaction to the "rigged election" (as the Republican Presidential candidate keeps repeating).  Because with the Republican's stupid representative, there might be some of those stupid followers that are gullible enough to take him seriously and take things into their own hands. :(

So just to confirm, isolated incidents of violence should no longer be reported on.  Or is this another one of those one sided standards (which is exactly my point in labeling this thread "Double Standard")?

Just to set you straight, I never said this story shouldn't be reported.  But by your own list above, it was reported, by just about every major news source.  So your only complaint was that it wasn't reported on enough by your standards.  So stop trying to say that I don't want the story reported.  And get over the fact that the rest of the world doesn't conform to your personal standards of how much a story should be reported.  You're starting to sound like Trump.  :P

General Comments / Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« on: October 17, 2016, 03:30:13 PM »
The news coverage, I think, is mainly driven by the question of how likely is this firebombing to be the first in a series, or just an isolated incident?

Since Hillary supporters haven't been talking about "rebellion" or "second-amendment" solutions, I don't think anyone believes this is anything but an isolated incident (as terrible as it is).  So while it is a horrible local story, it does not warrant much attention.

But since Trump supporters have been talking about "rebellion," and he has mentioned "second-amendment" solutions, the media (and us) would worry that this is just the start of an open rebellion.  So, yes, the media would then give it a lot more coverage.

So lack of front-page coverage doesn't indicate some grand conspiracy among the media (including Fox News :)).  It probably just indicates that few expect anything more to come out of this.

After all, does anyone here think this is not just an isolated incident, and that others major acts of violence against Republicans will soon occur?

General Comments / Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« on: October 15, 2016, 01:02:48 PM »
Could someone please explain how, if using a private e-mail for government business is such an obvious crime that Hillary should be thrown in jail just for doing so (as Trump apparently contends), why Colin Powell (who also used a private e-mail account for government business) is still walking free?  ???

If this was a serious question, rather than attempt to protect Hillary, you may have started by looking at their dates of service and the level of technology in the State Department at the time each was in office, which alone answers why Colin Powell's use of private email - on occasion - is something completely different than diverting all government communications to a private server.  Or one could look at the specific changes in IT policy that were put in place over time that make it clear that Clinton was operating in a different environment.

Or one could honestly ask, if any other government employee could have diverted their entire work related email load through a personal server?  And if they could have gotten away with it.

So you're saying that the environment Clinton was working in was unique, not one that was extant before she took the job.

However, even though what she did was "unique," it is still obvious to many--like Trump--that it was a crime worthy of a prison sentence.

And they base this on the precedents of other crimes--even though you have admitted it was in a unique environment.

Do you see how the two ideas don't fit together? :)

Did Hillary break the rules by not using the government e-mail server for government correspondence?  Yes, of course.

Does this reach the level of criminality that makes it "obvious" that she should serve jail time?  Well, no.

The closest comparison is Colin Powell's use of non-government (and doubtlessly just as unsecure) e-mail for non-government e-mails.  But, of course, we only have his word on it (just like we had Hillary's that no classified information were in her e-mails), so I don't find that definitive.  All other comparisons was merely analogous, with very specific differences.

The FBI found she did not have any intention of mistreating classified material.  And so far, there has been no evidence of an actual security breach.  And the FBI did not believe it reached the level of a crime.

So it is not obvious that she committed a crime worthy of jail.

You can talk about how these two events differ, but you still haven't talked about how Clinton's unique acts were so obviously egregious that there is no question that she should be incarcerated, when the closest similar act is ignored.

This is why the claims that "people have been thrown in jail for lesser offenses" and "she's obviously guilty" sounds so hollow.  Because it wasn't so just a few years before they found out that Hillary had done so.  ::)

They sound hollow, because they cause you cognitive dissonance.  That's the only reason.

Sorry, it's hollow because I can recognize the cognitive dissonance of those calling for her jailing.  :P

While some people may have a double standard, your mistake is in thinking that only a double standard can explain why someone might think what some of us think. Did you...I my thread on the Bush admin? It's funny you should forget about that when it comes to this issue and try to reduce the Hillary question to one of merely taking partisan sides.

I am glad that someone is still upset about the similar egregious loosing of e-mails by the Bush Administration, Fenring, I would still like the phrase "Of course she should be punished for deleting those thousands of e-mails" to be amended with "just like those in the Bush Administration were punished for deleting 22 million e-mails."  But the second part always seems to be left off. :(

General Comments / Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« on: October 14, 2016, 11:14:35 AM »
Could someone please explain how, if using a private e-mail for government business is such an obvious crime that Hillary should be thrown in jail just for doing so (as Trump apparently contends), why Colin Powell (who also used a private e-mail account for government business) is still walking free?  ???

(And please don't say it was because Hillary included classified information in her e-mails and Colin didn't.  Because it took a long investigation, reviewing thousands of e-mails, before they found those handful of e-mails that had classified information in them.  I'm sure that if someone looked at all of General Powell's e-mails, they would find that some accidently contained classified information, too.  With the volume of correspondence a Secretary of State handles, and the sometimes nebulous nature of what is considered "classified," it would be far more surprising if he didn't slip up a few times.)

Oh, yes, and why, if deleting a few thousand e-mails is so obviously an attempt to hide damning information, and anyone (like Hillary) should be thrown in jail for doing so, no one is clamoring for someone to be prosecuted for deleting somewhere between 2 million and 22 million e-mails that Congress requested from the Bush Administration and were supposedly deleted?

This is why the claims that "people have been thrown in jail for lesser offenses" and "she's obviously guilty" sounds so hollow.  Because it wasn't so just a few years before they found out that Hillary had done so.  ::)

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« on: October 14, 2016, 10:28:18 AM »
This doesn't really belong on this thread, but I didn't find one more appropriate, and this is such a burn, it really needed to be added somewhere.

In case anyone missed it, The New York Times' lawyer responds to Trump's demand that they retract the article about two women who said that Trump touched them inappropriately:

Dear. Mr. Kasowitz:

I write in response to your letter of October 12, 2016 to Dean Baquet concerning your client Donald Trump, the Republican Party nominee for President of the United States. You write concerning our article "Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately" and label the article as "libel per se." You ask that we "remove it from [our] website, and issue a full and immediate retraction and apology." We decline to do so.

The essence of a libel claim, of course, is the protection of one's reputation. Mr. Trump has bragged about his non-consensual sexual touching of women. He has bragged about intruding on beauty contestants in their dressing rooms. He acquiesced to a radio host's request to discuss Mr. Trump's own daughter as a "piece of ass." Multiple women not mentioned in our article have publicly come forward to report on Mr. Trump's unwanted advances. Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself.

But there is a larger and much more important point here. The women quoted in our story spoke out on an issue of national importance -- indeed, an issue that Mr. Trump himself discussed with the whole nation watching during Sunday night's presidential debate. Our reporters diligently worked to confirm the women's accounts. They provided readers with Mr. Trump's response, including his forceful denial of the women's reports. It would have been a disservice not just to our readers but to democracy itself to silence their voices. We did what the law allows: We published newsworthy information about a subject of deep public concern. If Mr. Trump disagrees, if he believes that American citizens had no right to hear what these women had to say and that the law of this country forces us and those who would dare to criticize him to stand silent or be punished, we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him straight.

David McCraw

If only we could all slam each other with such eloquence. :)

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« on: October 12, 2016, 05:45:16 PM »
And speaking of Hillary's "deplorables" statement, I always thought she made one big error.

She should have ended the statement with "Some, I assume, are good people."

Then the Republicans wouldn't have been able to complain about it. :D

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« on: October 12, 2016, 05:43:55 PM »
Because, after all, the Left-Wing Media knows that Republicans love idiots, liars and bigots, so showing him to be such would naturally bring him to the fore.

Although there is quite a bit of evidence to show that is true, I somehow doubt that was the plan. :)

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« on: October 12, 2016, 05:37:39 PM »
I never said the left wing media agreed with him.  I said they selected him as the candidate deliberately.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that Hillary would be unelectable against any normal candidate, at least not without an even more obviously one sided hit job (which the media would have engaged in if they had to do so), but why bother when you can prop up Trump?  That's exactly what they did throughout the Republican primaries.  Were you under the impression that I think they picked him because they want him to win?

And exactly how did The Media "prop up Trump?"  By reporting on the stupid, untrue and racist things that he said, and calling them stupid, untrue and racist?  That props up a candidate and makes him more desirable?  ???

How many votes did the Left-Wing Media think Trump would garner by reporting him calling a judge prejudicial because he had Mexican parents?  Are you saying the Left-Wing Media thought, "Oooh, this will help him clinch the nomination"? :D

The Media didn't pick him.  They reported on him, because he was the biggest clown of the bunch.  And somehow, Republicans thought what he said was great!  And he edged out the 16 others candidates.

No, the Left-Wing Media didn't prop up, choose, or help get Trump elected, just as they haven't influenced his supporters to chant "Jail Hillary."  They've reported what a huge, egotistical jerk he is.  The fact that many Republicans feel that is a good thing is not the responsibility of the Media.

Trying to blame Trump on the Media is like how some Congressmen tried to blame overriding Obama's veto on Obama.  It just doesn't fly.

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« on: October 12, 2016, 01:03:58 PM »
AI's right, Seriati.  Just look at what the crowds at Trump rallies chant. 

"Jail Hillary."

That's not any message I've heard from the Left-Wing Media. ;)

What Trump has been doing is parroting everything the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Coulters, Ingrahams, etc. have been preaching for years.  He's the only one who has the guts to say it, straight out, because he's the only one who thinks he'll never be held responsible for saying it.

So he says that climate change isn't true; that immigrants are causing many, if not most, of our problems; that you can't trust a Mexican-heritage judge to try your case; that cutting taxes will cause a huge increase in the economy that will cover any tax cuts; that Hillary is the devil.  None of these things are preached by the Left-Wing Media.  Hell, they spend hours debunking these lies.

But they are preached by the Hewetts, O'Reilys, and Becks.

Republicans have fallen for the lies and manipulations, all right, but not from the Left.  They've fallen for it from their own wing.  They've listened to their own propaganda for so long, they believe it, hook, line and sinker.  And so when a half-wit demagogue comes along and starts repeating the propaganda loudly, boldly, with no fear, about a third of the Republicans flock to him, because he's saying what they already know.  What they've been taught.

Republicans have been kowtowing to their demagogues for a couple of decades now.  They've made their bed.  Now they can lie in it.  Roll in it.

I just hope the rest of us won't have to join them. :(

While a direct Russian connection would be juicy as hell, it seems perfectly in character for this guy (and his campaign) to release ANYTHING that shows his opponent in a bad light.  He/they couldn't care a lick if it ends up being true.

Not sure this is a distinguishing characteristic between the two candidates.  Honestly, the anti-Trump campaign has floated just as many half-truths and fake stories, with far less justification (cause you know, the actual stuff he says is damaging enough on its own).

Hey, could you point out a few?  Preferably from a fact-check site, so we don't have to verify it ourselves?

It'd be cool to see some of Hillary's dirt, too. :)

General Comments / Re: The Second Debate - 2016
« on: October 11, 2016, 06:17:04 PM »
However, this is a context where anyone not name Hillary Clinton has pretty much had the book thrown at them and actually been convicted, so I suspect she would not have faired well.

So you're saying that if someone like Colin Powel had used a private e-mail address instead of the government one, he unquestionably would have been thrown in jail?

Or if the Bush Administration had deleted 2 million e-mails, someone would have swung?

Seem kinda unlikely to me. :)

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« on: October 11, 2016, 05:30:01 PM »
Ah, yes, rule #34: War is good for business. :)

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« on: October 11, 2016, 12:44:52 PM »
I kinda doubt the House will go Democrat and the Senate remains Republican controlled.  Because of gerrymandering and the way those who are like-minded (politically) tend to congregate together, most House districts are pretty safe.  It would take a real political tidal wave to wrest the House from the Republicans this election, and then the Senate would be swept-away, too.

So while there is a better than 50/50 chance the Senate will go Demcrat, I doubt the House will, too.

Speaking of Trump's Russian connection, Trump apparently got one of his recent talking points/lies  directly from Sputnik, a Russian on-line news service.

Who in the Trump campaign is looking at Russian news services for stories?  And why?  Do they rely on them more than others?  Or are they so indiscriminate that they will repeat any story, regardless of the source or validity?

And almost half the voters want this jerk for President??  ::)

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)
« on: October 11, 2016, 11:23:39 AM »
It is plausible that New Mexico could go for Johnson. More farfetched might be Utah based on recent events and Mormon leadership denouncing Trump.

I also expect Johnson to have the largest popular vote for a third party since Ross Perot, but not surpassing him. That's why they have locked 3rd party candidates out of debates since 2000.

Plausible, but highly unlikely at this time.  New Mexico currently polls Johnson at about 16%, and Utah at only 12.6%.   While the backlash from the latest tape hasn't been fully felt yet in the polls, I doubt it will affect them that much.  (After all, is anyone truly surprised by it? ;))

But he will doubtlessly have the largest popular vote for a third party candidate since Ross Perot's 19% back in '92, although, as you said, he won't surpass him, and still doesn't stand a chance.  Currently he is polling at 7%.  It will probably look like he "stole" the election from Trump (I, too, think it will be fairly close as far as the popular vote), but I'm pretty sure that such voters wouldn't have voted for Trump even if Johnson wasn't on the ticket.  In fact, Johnson will probably save the Republican down-ticket candidates by drawing voters to the polls who would otherwise have sat it out.

General Comments / Re: October Surprises
« on: October 10, 2016, 03:35:50 PM »
Well, primarily are strategies to make the most money, but point taken. :)

General Comments / Re: October Surprises
« on: October 10, 2016, 11:08:51 AM »
They broke the story on Trump's tax returns but for the Hillary stories they are just repeating what wikileaks already revealed for which they deserve no kudos.

It's hard to break something when you don't have it, cherry. :)  Until someone had those e-mails, there was nothing to either break or withhold.

But don't worry, cherry.  If it makes news (which today means garners attention or ratings), they'll break it.  The MSM is beholden to no one but their bottom line.

General Comments / Re: October Surprises
« on: October 09, 2016, 07:14:26 PM »
If the media has damaging information on Hillary would they withhold it?

Examples would include video of her stating that the Supreme Court got the Heller decision wrong and in another speech that she wants open borders.

What do you consider the media, cherry?  What do you consider "withholding?"

The Washing Post reported that Hillary stated that the Supreme Court got the Heller decision wrong on June 6.

And The Washington Times reported yesterday that Hillary "dreams of a “common market with open trade and open borders,” saying that economic opportunity in the U.S. would grow as a result", per the latest Wikileaks leak.  (A position that the Republican party agreed with until recently, IIRC.)

So these topics have been discussed in the media.

Or do you mean that they haven't been discussed as much as you think they should be?  Probably.  But editorial boards don't always agree with individuals on what is the most important news of the day.

So maybe it hasn't been blazoned in the headlines as you'd like.  But a quick internet search shows these stories haven't been "withheld."

General Comments / Re: Hillary Election Fraud Discovered
« on: October 07, 2016, 03:44:17 PM »
Snopes is your friend.

Yeah, AI, the validity of this fraud was easy to dispel, especially with the second-rate photoshop on the picture.  But it still doesn't answer how we can fight these frauds.

I'm sure there will be more fraudulent stories about how Clinton and the Democrats are committing voter fraud.  Some will be harder to spot.  How will we discern when a story is a fraud?  And how do we convince those who believe these fraudulent accusations that they aren't true, and the election was legitimate?

And the worst-case scenario, what if those convinced of voter fraud decide to take it into their own hands to rectify these fraudulent frauds?  Perhaps at the encouragement of their candidate?

For these questions I have no good answers. :(

General Comments / Re: Hillary Election Fraud Discovered
« on: October 07, 2016, 10:46:03 AM »
Oh, I know.  I've speculated that that might be the reason Trump won the primary.  (After all, he's said he's a good buddy with Putin, and the Russians have already hacked into at least one electoral computer.  :o )

The simplest answer would be to require these computers to print out a paper copy of each vote after it was cast, and to have each voter check it to make sure it was correct.  A paper trail like that would make it almost impossible for a hacker to significantly change the outcome.

But, of course, it wouldn't help with this type of fraud.

General Comments / Re: Tax Experts
« on: October 07, 2016, 10:37:33 AM »
Say, Letterrip, would we be able to hold the Congressional panel to the same standards of perjury if your idea was implemented? ;)

I mean, if one of the Congressmen made a statement (before asking his question, or even as part of his question) that was a material falsehood in their benefit, could we punish them for perjury?  Even if they did so believing it to be true, but because of bias, the slipperiness of determining facts, our faulty memories, and/or our tendency for hyperbole, was provably untrue?

Or would only those testifying be held to this high standard, while the inquisition would be free to lie like a dog? :)

Doesn't seem quite fair, does it?

General Comments / Hillary Election Fraud Discovered
« on: October 07, 2016, 10:27:08 AM »
Well, it's started.

According to the Christian Times, thousands of fraudulent ballots, filled out for Hillary Clinton, were discovered in the swing state of Ohio.

I'm sure we're going to hear a number of these stories in the weeks to come.

The question is, how can we fight this fraud?  How can we insure the legitimacy of our elections when many people, including one of the leading candidates, is expecting fraud and dirty tricks to influence the final count?

It's worrisome.  And I have no good answer.

The bottom line, cherry, is that the law is a bad idea not because it might or might not expose Saudi involvement in 9/11, but because of the repercussions of being able to sue a government.

For one thing, courts do not always come to the correct conclusion about the facts.  Just think of all the court determinations and verdicts that you think are absolutely insane or just plain wrong (e.g. O.J Simpson).  While usually courts are pretty fair, they sometimes aren't.  Which means any particular trial from this law may be completely insane.

Then we have the problem of the U.S. having no jurisdiction over the Saudi government.  We find them at fault, so what?  How are we going to enforce such a decision?

Finally, there is the Saudi reaction to it.  They could take great offense at any such verdict, and retaliate in ways that will hurt the entire nation, such as an oil embargo, or cutting ties with us.  Such national security implications cannot, and should not, be a consideration in a trial, but they are possible results of the verdict.

And if we can sue a foreign government, why can't foreigners sue ours?  Or even our own citizens sue ours?

This law opens up a whole can of worms, which may bite us in the future.  It has Congressmen worried, even though they passed it.  And some of them are such wimps that they won't even take responsibility.

No, exposing Saudi involvement is not the problem with the law.  It's all the ripples that could come from it.

General Comments / Re: Remember the good old days?
« on: October 03, 2016, 05:58:37 PM »
Speaking of stupid pastiches, here's a [/url=]"good" one on Chick's comics.[/url]

After all, turnabout's fair play. :)

General Comments / Re: PSVR vs Oculus vs HTC Vive vs MS Hololens vs
« on: September 30, 2016, 10:49:21 AM »
Before I opened this thread up, I thought you were talking about various groups in Syria.  :-[

General Comments / Re: The First Debate - 2016
« on: September 29, 2016, 05:07:29 PM »
Wait!  That would make him the Anti-Christ, wouldn't it?  The Religious Right is right!

I mean, if he had a Kenyan father but no earthly mother...  ;)

General Comments / Re: Who is left?
« on: September 29, 2016, 04:24:55 PM »
I'm here to read interesting viewpoints and thoughts and, when the fancy takes me, get into an argumen-ahem, *debate* with someone.

As long as [*sniff*] they're better than [*sniff*] certain other debates that [*sniff*] we've seen lately. ;)

(I think there's something wrong with my keyboard. :) )

General Comments / Re: History doesn't repeat - but it rhymes
« on: September 29, 2016, 01:08:37 PM »
But New Hampshire is only worth 4 electoral votes, which wouldn't have been enough to win.

Oops.  :-[

I double-checked the total electoral votes, 271 to 266.  The 4 votes from New Hampshire would have tipped the balance, to 267 to 270.  Just enough for Gore to win. :(

So gaining the Green Party would have won him the election by gaining him 1 or 2 more States.  I retract my point.  (Although the butterfly ballots still might have given Gore the win, too ;)).

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 33